Rapidly

Deployable Flood
Prevention Mechanism for
Small Structures
Advisor: Dr. Dorin Boldor
Aaron Holub
Cameron Larks
Grace Rozanski
Olivia Derise
Jeanne Steyer

Table of Contents
Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……2
Background ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……3
Problem Statement ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….4
Measurable Objectives ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….4
Constraints ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…….4
Design Process ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….5
Design Tools
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...7
Pugh Chart. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………7
Physical Decomposition. ………………………………………………………………………………………………..7
Morphological Chart ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..8
Weighted Matrix. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..9
Preliminary Calculations ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….10
Hydrostatic Force on Water …………………………………………………………………………………………10
Stress on Pipes …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….10
Concrete Calculations ………………………………………………………………………………………………….11
Soil Mechanics …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11
Test Plan
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11
Gantt Chart ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..12
Budget …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….13
Bill of Materials ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….13
National Competition ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………15
Improvements
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...15
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...15
References ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...16

 2

Abstract
Flooding is the overflow of various depths of water onto land that is ordinarily dry. Aside from
wildfires, flooding is the most widespread and destructive natural disaster. Such an event can
cause disastrous impacts on homes, families, and commercial properties. The Federal
Emergency Management Agency offers flood map services to determine flood risks. The
families in those flood zones need an inexpensive, flood protection device that can be set up
quickly. Knowing this need, a small-scale prototype was designed to withstand the hydrostatic
force of three feet of water. A pump will be used with design to get rid of any water seepage
through the device. The device will be tested in the spring of 2018 to determine if it can
withstand the force of the water and not collapse.





















 3

Background
Different sorts of floods such as coastal, fluvial, and pluvial are all caused by various events.
These events include the saturation of urban drainage systems, severe weather and excessive
rainfall (Maddox, Ivan). The awareness of flood risks continues to increase as severe weather
intensifies and populations flourish.
Areas at risk of experiencing floods depend on geological factors. Coastal areas that experience
high tides, tidal surges and stormy weather conditions in low atmospheric pressure, typically
flood due to the accumulation coastal water above normal levels. Fluvial floods occur at rivers
or streams. These areas are incapable of draining incoming waters from surrounding lands,
which causes the remaining water to subsequently flow onto land. Surface water floods, or
pluvial, occurs when heavy rainfall saturates drainage systems and the excess water cannot be
absorbed. This flooding type is becoming a common issue due to high rate of developments
creating large impermeable surfaces (Hubbard, James).
Floodwaters not only affect the environment, but can also cause financial, health and safety
hazards. Financially, flood insurance is not included in standard homeowners policies. The
policy is generic with options to increase risk exposures. It is mandatory for homeowners in
high-risk flood zones to carry the added coverage. Health hazards during floods include the
transmission of communicable diseases (water-borne, vector-borne), hotspots for microbial
growth, and asbestos. In addition to financial and health, other important hazards that are
considered during floods are electrical and gas hazards. Gas leaks are common and electrical
wires, lines and equipment must be taken with caution during floods.

Industrial Products
Due to causes of flooding such as human activities and climate
change, there is a strong need for efficient flood prevention
devices. High-demand flood prevention mechanisms currently
available in industry include Removable Flood Barriers,
Boxwalls, Water Gates, and Water Inflated Flood Barriers. The
Removable Flood Barriers (figure 1) consist of hollow
aluminum planks that interlock within one another. As the
Figure 1: Removable flood barrier
flood water levels increase, the hollow planks fill and block
flood waters from protected areas (Faye). This specific device costs $21,000 for a rectangular
structure (8’x5’x4’). A device used against rushing waters is the Boxwall. This device consists of
cellular rubber soles at the base that provide a reliable grip on the surface. Although the device
is relatively affordable at $50 a foot, it only works efficiently on hard, flat surfaces. The Water
Gate (figure 2) is another current device on the market. As water flows into the device, this
causes the top to rise to its designed height. The disadvantage to the Water Gate is that for it to
be only 6 inches tall, it costs $1,300. The Water Inflated Flood Barrier is a device that
 4

completely fills with water and can reach up to 8 feet in

height. It is very compact in storage, however, it requires
large quantities of water, does not completely surround
an object, and costs $14,000 for 100 feet (Water-Gate).


Problem Statement Figure 2: Water Gate

The problem statement for this project is to be able to quickly and efficiently set up a flood wall
to protect a person’s belongings in the event of a flood. The specifics of this goal are to are to
hold back the Army Corps of Engineers recommended three feet of water, construct the flood
wall within the $1000 budget, and test the design in a rising water system without debris.
Measurable Objectives
The main focus of the design is to construct a framework that remains upright even with the
high hydrostatic force created by the incoming water.
The first measurable objective is to have the device withstand 3 feet of water without the posts
breaking or the fabric collapsing. If the posts were to break or the fabric were to collapse, our
device would fail. Steel pipes were chosen in order to withstand the hydrostatic force from the
flood, and waterproof fabric was chosen so that the fabric would not absorb the water, adding
unnecessary weight to the posts.
Another measurable objective is to set up the device within 45 minutes. The time of 45 minutes
was chosen, because it is assumed that this is not only the required time for the device to be
set up, but is also a reasonable time for the device to be set up in the event of an unexpected
flood.
The last measurable objective is for the device to handle a maximum seepage of 50 gallons per
hour. This is reasonable amount of seepage per hour that the pump is expected to handle. The
pump is able to pump out a maximum of 200 gallons per hour. An expectation of no more than
50 gallons per hour of seepage allows for the pump to work without being over-exerted.
Constraints
Multiple constraints for this project were the root cause for the various fluctuations in this
design process. The $1,000 budget was the most hindering, due to the fact that a larger
structure would have been more ideal. The size of the design, whether it be for a house, car, or
small structure, was also another aspect to consider. Making the device circular, rectangular, or
another shape was contemplated; for example, circular is stronger but would have been more
difficult to brace. The type of material used for the posts and covering was a very important
constraint, since different waterproof materials have varying bendability, durability, weight,
 5

thickness, and cost. Deciding whether the design should include air –filled, water-filled, or just
plainly waterproof fabric was considered. Also, finding a suitable testing location to observe the
effects of three feet of water on our design was a difficult task, since one is not able to simply
drain a pond. Overall, these constraints were taken into account during the planning period in
order to develop a final design.
Design Process
To get to the final design, several designs were created and
analyzed. The first design created took inspiration from kiddie
pools. The design was circular and had a water-filled tube on the
bottom connected to an air-filled tube on the top by a
waterproof material. In order to add more stability to the
design, metal inserts would be put in the sides (Figure 3). This
design would be made up of kiddie pools sewn together.
Figure 3: Design 1
The second design considered was similar
to the water inflatable flood barrier. A
device similar to this was used in the 2017
flooding in Houston and was homemade
and not available for sale. The idea is to
create a large water filled tube connected
heavy duty zippers with a neoprene flap
over it. Metal inserts using tongue and
groove inserts would also support this
device. The use of water would allow the
device to create a watertight seal under
the tube, which would help minimize
seepage.
Figure 4: Design 2

The final design was created to be able to be set up quickly while using
the least amount of surface area. This device consists of ground footing
that will be inserted before the threat of any flood. This will consist of
PVC pipe encased in a concrete footing. These will be permanently in the
ground. If a flood is reported the user would then insert metal pipes into
these PVC pipes as the main supports for the structure, as seen in Figure
5. The polyethylene fabric would then be connected to the steel pipes
using carabiners hooked in the prefabricated holes in the fabric. The

Figure 5: Design 3 in
ground support
 6

polyethylene skirt would then have a row of sandbags used to

hold down the tarp, and minimize seepage under the tarp shown
in Figure 6. Knowing there will be seepage into the device itself,
the user will set up a series of 2 battery powered pumps to insure
that no sitting water will be present in the device. This device was
created to scale in AutoCAD Inventor and can be seen in Figure 7.

Figure 6: Design 3 coverage

Figure 7: Design 3 AutoCAD Inventor

 7

Design Tools
Pugh Chart:
To determine which design would be best for this project, a pugh chart (figure 8) was
constructed. Important factors such as water seepage, durability, cost, time to setup, ease of
assembly, portability, and weight were compared to a Levee (DATUM). The levee would not
allow water seepage and would take less time to setup compared to the three proposed
designs. The three proposed designs have deficiencies that would allow water seepage. Since
the levee is a fixed mechanism, it would have a shorter setup time. Design two was the most
durable in comparison to all designs, including the DATUM. According to the pugh chart, the
assembly process of the levee is more complex. Since the DATUM is a fixed support, it is not
portable, whereas, the proposed designs are all deployable. Since design two requires water-
filled tubes, the weight is the ‘same’ as a levee. Design three is the best design due to having
the highest value of positives.

Figure 8: Pugh chart for proposed designs

Physical Decomposition:
The final design, proposal three, consists of three main components shown in the physical
decomposition chart (figure 9): the covering, the pump, and the supports. The covering for the
rapidly deployable flood prevention mechanism will have a zipper and flap, fabric covering, and
 8

sand bags. The second component is a battery operated pump, which is cost efficient. The third
component, the supports, consists of the posts, connectors for material, and the in ground post
supports.

Figure 9: Physical decomposition for final design

Morphological Chart:
In order to consider all aspects of the design, a morphological chart (figure 10) was created to
analyze the most viable options. Options for the in ground pipe, above ground pipe, plastic
lining, pipe to plastic attachment, pump type, and shape were considered and discussed. For
the in ground pipe, PVC was chosen due to the fact that it does not corrode easily. This is
important because it would be the part of the design that would remain in the ground, thus
susceptible to corrosive factors. As for the above ground pipe, galvanized steel was preferred
due to its strength, durability, and efficacy. Polyethylene was selected as the plastic lining
because of its waterproof nature, resilience, thickness, and weight. Carabiners were the best
option to attach the polyethylene to the steel posts because of their ease of use, strength, and
low cost. Since many users may not have a generator easily accessible to them, a battery
operated pump was chosen so that the design could be more universal. Also, they tend to be
generally low in cost, which is why they were picked for this design. A rectangular shape was
chosen due to the fact that it would be easier to develop this figure from a straight piece of
waterproof material. A circle would have to be cut and sewn together in many more places,
thus adding more room for error and seepage.

 9

Figure 10: Morphological chart for design 3

Weighted Matrix for Covering:

A weighted matrix (figure 11) was used in deciding which type of material for the covering
would be the best fit for the design. Criteria such as cost, weight, thickness, and weather
resistance were considered among three different materials: polyethylene, polyester vinyl
coated, and oil boom canvas. With oil boom canvas being extremely expensive, heavy, and
impractical, it was deemed the worst option of the three. Polyester vinyl coated was slightly
better than the oil boom canvas; however, polyethylene resulted in the highest score of the
three, meaning it was the greatest selection.

Figure 11: Weighted Matrix for covering

 10

Preliminary Calculations
Hydrostatic Force of Water

The hydrostatic force against the wall is the main force acting on the device. This is found by
using the above equation to relate the pressure created by 3 feet of water with a base of 4 feet
to one central point. The 4 feet is the distance between each post.

Stress on Pipe Calculations

’’

In order to determine whether to use 1.5 in diameter pipes or 2.5 in diameter pipes, the stress
equation above was used with the moment taken right before the support. The first place the
 11

pipe is most likely to bend is right above the support which is why the moment was determined
here. The moment of inertia equation is for a hollow pipe such as the ones being used. Once
the stress of each diameter size pipe was calculated, they were both compared to the yield
strength of galvanized steel, which is 72.5 ksi. Since the stress on the 1.5 in diameter is greater
than the yield strength, it will bend under the force of the water while the 2.5 in diameter pipe
will not. The 2.5 in diameter pipe was chosen for the design due to this.
Concrete Calculations

Determining the amount of concrete needed was accomplished by finding the volume of the
concrete first. The 3’’ PVC diameter was subtracted from the 6’’ diameter of concrete, resulting
in a volume of 0.22 ft^3. Since the design plans for 10 posts, .22 𝑓𝑡 ! of concrete will be
required. One 80 lb bag of concrete is .6 ft^3. Thus, four 80 lb bags of concrete would fulfill the
concrete requirement. Each post will be weighed down by 33.1 lb of concrete, which is the
calculated weight of the concrete once it is mixed and set. Concrete is used to combat the
strong forces of water as well as keep the PVC securely anchored in the soil.
Soil Mechanics
The testing will take place in East Baton Rouge Parish. The soil in East Baton Rouge Parish is silt
loam which consists of 12 to 27% sand, 50 to 80% silt, and less than 12% clay. Since the soil type
is silt loam and the weight of the concrete that will surround the support is 33.1 lbs., the
assumption made is that the post will stay in the ground and not move even when the soil is
saturated with water. (Critiques were made on this assumption during the presentation and will
be addressed under the improvements section.)
Test Plan
Testing of the device was a major constraint of our device due to its size and amount of water
needed. Many options were considered however the Aquaculture Center on Ben Hur Rd.was
found to be the most suitable testing location. The testing of the device will consist of four
stages draining, first build, second build, and filling.
 12

The first stage of testing the device will be to drain the pond at the aquaculture center. After
draining the pond the pond will be allowed to dry which will vary due to the weather at the
time. The drying phase is critical for the concrete footings in the second stage to set in.
The second stage of setting up the device will be to place the in ground pipe as well as the
concrete footings. This will require 10 holes to be dug that will be 2 feet deep and 6 in in
diameter. A posthole digger will be used for this stage as well as a compass and measuring tape
to insure each post is in the exact position specified in the design. This stage of the set up will
not be timed because this stage is not time dependent as in third stage.
The third stage will consist of two group members setting up the rest of the design. This
includes inserting the steel pipes into the PVC pipes, attaching tarp to pipes, zip the tarps
together, and placing sandbags on the skirt. In the scope of the design the users of the device
will have a limited amount of time to set up. In this stage these group members will set up the
device in 45 minutes as specified in the problem statement. The water seepage pumps will also
be placed in the device and turned on.
In the fourth stage the pond will be filled to 3 feet using the pumps at the aquaculture center.
We will validate our measurable objective by collecting the water that the pumps remove and
by allowing the water to reach the 3 feet and testing if the device holds.
Gantt Chart
A Gantt chart (figure12) was created to visualize the progression of the design. Planning,
finalizing project idea, research, preliminary calculations, midterm presentations, final
presentations, design, purchasing materials, building, and testing were all included in the
diagram.

Figure 12: Gantt chart for project progression

 13

Budget

Table 1: Budget for final design

MATERIALS PRICE

White Poly Tarp (2) 6’ x 30’ $30.60ea. $61.20 total

PVC Pipe (1) 3’ x 20’ $19.98

Steel Pipe (10) 2 ½” x 8’ $48.40ea. $400 total

Concrete Mix (4) 80lb $4.15ea. $16.60 total

Polypropylene Sandbags (20) 14” x 26” $16.99

All-Purpose Sand (16) 50lb $4.20ea. $67.20 total

Carabiner (10) $10.99

Portable Pump (2) $39.24ea. $78.48 total

D Batteries (72) $42.99

Gorilla Glue (4) 3oz $4.84ea. $19.36 total

Water Repellent Zipper (2) $46.98ea. $129.96 total

Industrial Strength Velcro Tape (1) 15’ x 2” $28.97

TOTAL $892.72


Bill of Materials

Table 2: Detailed bill for materials

PART # MATERIAL QUANTITY VENDOR

DETAILS

4140-4 Attwood WaterBuster Portable Pump 2 Amazon

00086 Rayovac 00086 - D Cell Heavy Duty Battery 1 Amazon

 14

(72 pack)

TP-WPT630- White Poly Tarp 6' x 30' - Single 2 Tarps Plus

1

90197 15 ft. x 2 in. Industrial Strength Tape 1 Home Depot

23842 Charlotte Pipe 3-in x 20-ft Sch 40 Cellcore 1 Lowe’s

PVC DWV Pipe

ZIPUV10- UV Ray Resistant Water Repellant Outdoor 2 Zippershipper

100 Zipper sewing
supplies

Steel Pipe - 2 1/2" Sch 40, 96" Long 10 Shapiro Supply

110180 Quikrete 80 lb. Concrete Mix 4 Home Depot

ZD-SD-02 Empty Sand Bags - with Solid Ties, UV 1 Amazon

Protection,14 " x 26 " , Qty of 20

98545 QUIKRETE 50-lb All-Purpose Sand 16 Lowe’s

Ateman 2 Inch Snap Hooks Stainless Steel 1 Amazon

Hooks Carabiner

8040001 Gorilla 8040001 Clear Grip Contact 4 Amazon

Adhesive, 3 Oz., Clear


 15

National Competition
The main deadline for this competition is for the design report needs to be submitted by May
15, 2018 at 11:00 PM EST by e-mail to the ASABE Awards Coordinator, Sarah Cook, at
cook@asabe.com. The design projects must be 15 pages, not including appendices, and
submitted as a pdf. The report will be judged by a panel and the three teams with the highest
report scores will be invited to a presentation competition at the ASABE Annual International
Meeting.
Improvements
One of the critiques received during the presentation was that the pump will be run down very
quickly if it is running the full time, so due to the recommendation received during critiques, a
float switch will be added to the pump so that it only turns on when a certain level of water is
detected. This will also most likely allow less batteries to be needed. Another critique was that
the force of the soil on the in-ground support was not taken into consideration. Additional
comments were that the factor of safety for the steel pipes and pvc supports should be
calculated along with at what force and stress the concrete will crack at. There were also
concerns about the design being rectangular instead of circular. After hearing all of the
critiques, it was decided that the design will be reevaluated and if the in-ground supports are
kept, then the soil force calculations and factor of safety calculations will be completed. If the
in-ground supports are replaced with another above ground support design, factor of safety
calculations will be completed along with any other force and stress calculations needed.
Conclusion
Over the course of this semester, copious amounts of research, planning, designing,
deliberating, and decisions were conducted with the end goal of producing a rapidly deployable
flood prevention mechanism. In the upcoming future, the team will move on with the final
design, order materials, and begin building next semester. The final design will be tested at the
Aquaculture station in Baton Rouge at the end of the upcoming semester. In conclusion, a
finalized design will be made in order to find an alternative, cheaper flood prevention device
created by a group of five LSU Biological Engineering students.

 16

References

Faye. "The Mobile Flood Walls in Austria Keep Everyone Safe." Elite Readers. DCMA Protected,
17 July 2017.

Hubbard, James. “Types of Flood - Coastal, Reservoir, Fluvial and Pluvial Flooding.” Ambiental,
20 Sept. 2012, www.ambiental.co.uk/types-of-flood-and-flooring-impact/.

Maddox, Ivan. “The Risks of Hazard.” Three Common Types of Flood Explained, Intermap
Technologies, 31 Oct.2014, www.intermao.com/risks-of-hazard-blog/.

Reichel, Claudette. "FAQs -- After Gutting a Flooded Home." LSU AgCenter. August 9, 2017.
Accessed September 24, 2017.

“Water-Gate.” BasePump, Base Products Corporation, 2017,

basepump.com/products/water-gate/.

“WIPP Water-Inflated Flood Barrier.” WIPP Water-Inflated Property Protector,

www.hydroresponse.com/wipp.htm.

"Your Cool Facts and Tips on Flooding." Eschooltoday.com.22 Oct. 2017.